Caminus, you're right in that Popes these days seem rarely if ever to invoke their Apostolic authority, but I'm a little skeptical of this position being reduced to a sort of crypto-sedevacantism which would insist that the Pope cannot bind us even if he clearly intends to. This is the language used,
Following the insistent prayers of these faithful, long deliberated upon by our predecessor John Paul II, and after having listened to the views of the Cardinal Fathers of the Consistory of 22 March 2006, having reflected deeply upon all aspects of the question, invoked the Holy Spirit and trusting in the help of God, with these Apostolic Letters we establish the following:
If the claim that the traditional Roman rite, approved by authority and antiquity, could legitimately be suppressed holds, how much moreso the N.O.?
Well, concerning the traditional Rite, Pope Benedict says it was "in principle, always permitted".
If the ground is open to assert that authority is utlimately arbitrary and does not exist except for the common good
I'm not saying that authority is arbitrary. I'm saying that the Church can loose what the Church has bound. The Church binds her faithful to obedience, she does not bind herself for the future. It would be impossible to imagine otherwise. Trent says,
"this power has ever been in the Church, that, in the dispensation of the sacraments, their substance being untouched, it may ordain,--or change, what things soever it may judge most expedient, for the profit of those who receive, or for the veneration of the said sacraments, according to the difference of circuмstances, times, and places."The approbation of a few conciliar Popes holds no more weight than the Council itself.
I agree with you on the Council and have said so. It did not bind anyone to anything, and defined no new dogma at all. I also do not deny that the last 50 years have been tragic to the Church, and the grandeur of the Papacy has been unwittingly, perhaps, self-abased.
The only real place I disagree with you, is as I said, and I think other traditional orders like the FSSP disagree with the SSPX, is in the living Magisterium, that Christ will protect it through weak Popes, and speak decisively at the right time, the faith of Peter will not fail, the gates of hell shall not prevail, according to the divine promise. So, yes, the Council did not in fact bind anything, but if, in future, the Church does bind something, even if there is a weak Pope at the time, I will submit to it. I believe it is an instance of that here.
If a mere postulate, suggestion, wish or desire is not tantamount to a command or law, neither is a series of them.
But this is not a suggestion, it does not have the language of a suggestion. It seems clearly intended to be a decisive act of the Magisterium to close the question.
In the practical order, what precisely is the novus ordo liturgy anyway, since it was purposely designed to disintegrate and form indigenous rites upon contact with various cultures?
I mean only the 1970 Latin Missal. The prudence of the decision may be reasonably questioned, but I do not believe I can hold any longer, following this statement by the Holy See, that this Mass, even with the misguided intended "simplifications" or whatever can actually become deficient for effecting the grace it signifies or be sinful or an occasion of sin.